24 July 2025 Civil Writ Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Delhi High Court has addressed a petition concerning Maharaja Agrasen Model School's (the 'School') alleged denial of education and facilities to students who hadn't paid increased fees. The petitioner association argued that the School, having received land at concessional rates from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), was required to obtain prior approval from the Directorate of Education (DoE) before raising fees.

The Court previously issued an interim direction on April 4, 2025, allowing aggrieved students to attend classes, which remains in effect.

The core of the dispute revolved around whether unaided private schools, especially those on DDA-allotted land, need prior DoE approval for fee hikes. The petitioner cited judgments like Justice for All v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. and Modern School v. Union of India & Ors., which indicated such a requirement.

However, the School countered by referencing Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools v. Directorate of Education, 2019 (referred to as 'Action Committee - I') and a subsequent order in Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools v. Directorate of Education, 2024 ('Action Committee - II'). These judgments, according to the School, established that no prior DoE approval is necessary for private unaided schools to increase fees, regardless of land ownership.

The petitioner argued that Action Committee - I had been stayed by a Division Bench, rendering it non-binding. The Court, however, clarified that while an interim order in the appeal (LPA No.230/2019) restrained "land clause schools" from collecting certain interim fee hikes, the underlying judgment in Action Committee - I was not quashed or set aside. Citing Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. vs. Church of South India Trust Association and Principal Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi-I vs. Space Telelink Ltd., the Court reiterated that a stay on an order's operation does not invalidate its reasoning or wipe it out of existence. Therefore, the legal position established in Action Committee - I, stating that prior DoE approval for fee hikes is not required, remains effective.

The Court noted that the DoE had approved the School's fee hike proposals for academic sessions up to 2022-23. However, no decision had been taken regarding the School's increased fees for the 2023-24 (15% hike) and 2024-25 (19% hike) academic sessions.

Consequently, the Court ruled that in the absence of a DoE order rejecting the fee hike proposals for 2023-24 onwards, the fee structure fixed by the School for these sessions would stand. However, the School cannot charge fees exceeding those approved by the DoE for academic sessions up to 2022-23.

The Court issued the following directions:

• The School cannot take coercive action against students who have cleared dues up to academic session 2022-23 as per DoE-approved fees, and who pay fees as per the School's submitted statements for 2023-24 onwards, until the DoE makes a decision on those proposals.
• Late fees are waived off.
• Students/parents are granted liberty to clear arrears for 2023-24 onwards in four equal quarterly installments, starting from September 1, 2025. The School will issue separate bills for these arrears.
• Any excess fee collected or deposited for academic sessions prior to 2023-24 shall be adjusted towards subsequent years.

The application was disposed of with these terms, and the main writ petition is listed for November 17, 2025.